In one way, this post is geared more towards a Technical Communications class, but in another way it speaks to the continued development of the skills we worked on in Professional Writing Technologies, too. When you create a resume, you're basically creating a marketing document. You're organizing information that makes the argument that you, as a product, are worth the money the employer is willing to pay as salary.
I told my Tech Writing class, during the Spring '09 semester, that it's "better to admit than omit," as a general rule. That is, it's better to deliver all relevant information up front, even if some of it is unfavorable, rather than have that information rear its ugly head down the road and have a reader ask, "Why wasn't I told about this back then?!"
However, I also admitted (see, there it is in action) that, like "spin" or any other language manipulation, there's omitting and then there's "omitting," if that makes sense. A writer can leave out information in an effort to divert attention or even mislead (BAD), or a writer can leave out information because it's not really relevant to the rhetorical situation.
I thought about that subtle distinction today when I saw this article on Yahoo! Lots of blog have written about job-hunt issues like polishing up your resume, not including dumb (even offensive) information, and controlling public information that might hurt your resume. This Yahoo! article, though, deals with omitting information about your marketable skills because they make you seem "overqualified," a word I've always found problematic.
Depending on the field you're interested in, it can be a rough time to look for a job. If you're a world-famous rocket-scientist, for example, but you can't find work in that field, should you leave off that part of your skill set so you can get the 6th grade science teaching job you found? Whereas NASA might look at those lines of your resume and think, "Mmmm, looks good," Austin Independent School District might look at it and think, "Yikes, we can't afford her/him!"
In that case, what do you do with your valuable marketing information (about how skilled you are)?
I agree with you in terms of a resume being a "marketing tool". I have been at both sides of a resume. As the employeer I knew the "targeted" resumes that would stand out by locating relevence to what the job consisted of. As the employee I knew that I was in lines of what the employeer sought because I only applied to those jobs that fit my education, experience, and skills and knew that my resume taylored to as such.
ReplyDeleteAll too often have I heard "you over qualify". At first impression I knew that I was not an over qualified candidate just perhaps not that person that they were in search of by notions that they had pre-determined. As far as admission or omission of facts goes, I would have to say that I feel you are correct by saying that admiting is better than omitting, because my goal of becoming an attorney tells me that no facts in law should be missed so why relate it to other aspects of life?
A resume is a tool designed to not just "sell" you as a person to perspectives, but also, as a tool to better define you as a person. I always try to sell myself for the job that I want and not the one that I possess. In this way I never short change myself or whatever company I work for.